On the discussion of the
Hobbit parody
The Soddit, a general discussion on the nature of parody and its validity (or lack of it) was begun. So as not to overload or hijack
that thread, I'd like to place the most pertinent posts here so that the discussion can continue. Please do remember that posts, while allowing for broad generalization on the topic, should still be as Tolkien-related as possible!
(I can't copy individual posts from the original thread, and I don't want to split that one, since it would lose coherency, so I'm copying the contents of relevant posts here and acknowledging the members who wrote them.)
Bęthberry's post:
What is it about parody that attracts some and not others? I might direct this question to
Estelyn as well, who bought and talked about this particular book during our meetings in London and who of course is known to dabble occasionally in parody of her own.
Why do some fans enjoy parodies of what they like and others not? This is not to say either perspective is right or wrong, but simply to consider some of the things we look for and value when we read. Does parody allow us some gentle distance from something that we might otherwise become obsessive about or does it suggest somehow a critique of its original? Is parody an inferior genre in that it clearly "depends" upon a precursor text? I don't think there is, in theory at least, a hard and fast line between parody and satire, but do general readers make such a distinction?
Saurreg's post:
Hmm, Webster's states that both parody and satire are the same. A "spoof" of the original. Maybe you can tell me what's the difference Bęthberry because I'm afraid of misinterpreting your post.
I know two types of people who like parodies; the first are people who are acquainted with the original work the parody is based on and would not mind viewing the work in an askewed perspective for a good laugh or to view the original work in another angle as additional food for thought. These people like the original work but are generally casual and easy-going over it. Not "too-into-it" and "taking-it-easy" are the orders of the day here.
The second group of people are more disturbing because they did not like the orginal work and hope that the parody likens the work to their point of view (courage in numbers maybe?) and reinforce their prejudice. Such people are rare but they do exist.
Similarly I can think of two types of people who distain parodies. The first group are fervert diehard royalists of the author or the ideas pertaining in the original work. They are so completely enamored/enticed that they view any askewed or even slightly different interpretation of the work as "sacrilegious blasphemy" because it threatens their own convictions in their beliefs and ideas on the work. Such xenophobic attitude may stem from fear of being "wrong" in their current thoughts and also perhaps the desire of keeping what little self-solace one can derive from such beliefs and convictions.
The second group of people are what I term as "chivalrists" They believe that it is morally wrong to take the work of another and twist it either to insult or make fun of. These chivalrists are either traditional in mindset or are generally compassionate and sympathetic. Alternatively, chivalrists could behave they way they do out of cowardice or insecurity. If it could happen to them, it could happen to you. So let's strike first.